Opinion TRENDS in Biotechnology Vol.20 No.
5 May 2002 193
Advanced agricultural
biotechnologies
and sustainable
agriculture
Thomas A. Lyson
Agricultural biotechnologies are anchored to a scientific paradigm rooted in
experimental biology, whereas sustainable agriculture rests on a biological
paradigm that is best described as ecological. Both biotechnology and
sustainable agriculture are associated with particular social science
paradigms: biotechnology has its foundation in neoclassical economics,
but sustainability is framed by an emerging community-centered,
problem-solving perspective. Fundamentally, biotechnology and
neoclassical economics are reductionist in nature. Sustainability and
community problem-solving, however, are nonreductionist. Given these
differences, we might see the development of two rather distinct systems
of food production in the near future.
Published online: 27 February 2002
Does genetic engineering have a role to play in
developing sustainable agricultural systems?
Many agricultural scientists, government officials
and large, multinational agribusiness companies
such as Monsanto (St Louis, MO, USA), Novartis
(Basel, Germany) and Archer, Daniel, Midlands
(ADM) (Decatur, IL, USA) believe so. According
to Monsanto: ‘Biotechnology, which allows the
transfer of a gene for a specific trait from one
plant variety or species to another, is one important
piece of the puzzle of sustainable development.
Experts assert that biotechnology innovations
will triple crop yields without requiring any
additional farmland, saving valuable rain
forests and animal habitats. Other innovations
can reduce or eliminate reliance on pesticides
and herbicides that might contribute to
environmental degradation. Still others can
preserve precious groundsoils and water resources.’
(http://www.biotechbasics.com/why.html).
Many of the claims of the proponents of
agricultural biotechnologies are being challenged
by a coalition of public interest groups who
represent a range of environmental, food safety
and economic concerns. These groups question
the compatibility of genetically modified food with
Thomas A. Lyson sustainable agriculture. For example, Friends of the
Dept of Rural Sociology,
Earth, a UK-based environmental group, notes:
Cornell University, Ithaca,
NY14853, USA. ‘…we promote sustainable agriculture and food
e-mail: tal2@cornell.edu sovereignty/security, acting as a counter-balance to
http://tibtech.trends.com 0167-7799/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII S0167-7799(02)01934-0
the models promoted by multinational biotech
companies. Environmental, health, socioeconomic,
ethical and cultural questions are also taken into
account, and a balance between perceptions in
developed and developing countries is sought.’
(http://www.foei.org/campaigns/Biotechnology/
indexbiotechnology.html).
Without reviewing all the claims made by both
sides of the genetic engineering debate, I argue
instead that, at its root, sustainable agriculture
represents a fundamentally different approach to
growing crops and raising livestock and poultry
than the (conventional) approach to farming that
is now incorporating genetic engineering into its
practices. Conventional agriculture is anchored to a
scientific paradigm that is rooted in experimental
biology and embodies an approach to farming that
focuses on enhancing the ‘favorable’ traits of crop
varieties and animal species. Further, I argue that
in a capitalist economic system, the traits
(products) developed by genetic engineers are
turned into commodities that can be bought, sold
and traded on the world market. As such, the
reductionist nature of experimental biology,
which identifies and creates ‘traits’, dovetails nicely
with the reductionism of neoclassical economics,
which provides the framework for turning these
traits into ‘property’.
‘Today, conventional agriculture is
increasingly incorporating practices
and techniques associated with
genetic engineering.’
Sustainable agriculture rests on a biological
paradigm best described as ‘ecological’. As such,
sustainable agriculture is not readily amenable to
incorporating the techniques and technologies of
reductionist science. However, sustainable
agriculture is unlikely to replace ‘conventional’
agriculture as the dominant production paradigm
until a new (or modified) social science paradigm
that is also nonreductionist in character is adopted.
An emerging community-centered ‘problem-solving’
perspective might offer a starting place for such
a paradigm.
The community problem-solving perspective can
be found in the works of Alexis de Tocqueville [1],
who showed that the norms of civic community are
embedded in distinctive social structures and
practices. In particular, de Tocqueville points to civic
associations as problem-solving cornerstones of the
civic community. Writing from this perspective,
Robert Putnam [2] notes ‘…a dense network of
secondary associations both embodies and
contributes to effective social collaboration.’
Esman and Uphoff [3] also relate community
problem-solving to development when they report
194 Opinion TRENDS in Biotechnology Vol.20 No.5 May 2002
‘a vigorous network of membership organizations is
essential to any serious effort to overcome mass
poverty under conditions that are likely to prevail in
most developing countries….’
What is conventional agriculture?
Conventional agriculture is the system of production
developed in advanced industrial countries and
promoted by researchers and outreach workers at
agricultural colleges and universities and by
government personnel affiliated with ministries
and departments of agriculture. It represents the
accumulated knowledge and wisdom about the
most widely accepted procedures and techniques to
grow crops and raise livestock and poultry [4].
Today, conventional agriculture is increasingly
incorporating practices and techniques associated
with genetic engineering.
Conventional agriculture is grounded on the
belief that the primary objectives of farming should
be to produce as much food and fiber as possible for
the least cost. It is driven by the twin goals of
productivity and efficiency. More particularly, the
organizational underpinnings of conventional
agriculture rest within both experimental biology
and neoclassical economics [5].
The logic of experimental biology dictates that
increasing output is the primary goal of scientific
agriculture. Through experimentation and trial
and error, agricultural scientists have worked
effectively to develop high producing animal species
and high yielding varieties of plants. Agricultural
biotechnologies have become the new leading edge of
the conventional agriculture paradigm and are
viewed by many as simply a ‘next step’ in the long
history of plant and animal breeding.
The prime movers behind the conventional model
of production in Europe and North America have
been agricultural colleges and universities,
ministries and departments of agriculture and,
more recently, large, multinational agribusiness
firms. Agricultural colleges were organized to bring
the methods of scientific research to farming. The
emphasis in the classroom and research laboratory
has been on production. Over the past 120 years,
the formation of different production-oriented
agricultural disciplines, such as agronomy, plant
pathology, the animal sciences, plant breeding and
entomology, split ‘farming’ apart, bit by bit, into
disciplinary niches.
The goals, however, were the same across
disciplines. In the plant sciences, attention was
directed at increasing yields by enhancing soil
fertility, reducing pests and developing new genetic
varieties. By contrast, animal scientists focused on
health, nutrition and breeding.
The scientific and technological advances
wrought by agricultural scientists were filtered
through a farm management paradigm in
agricultural economics that championed sets of
http://tibtech.trends.com
‘best management practices’ as the blueprints
for successful and profitable operations.
Neoclassical economics posits that optimal
efficiency and presumably maximum profitability
in production agriculture can be achieved by
balancing the four factors of production: land, labor,
capital and management or entrepreneurship.
These four factors form the basis of the production
function [6].
The production model of agriculture focuses
primarily on commodities (and their component
parts) as units of observation, analysis,
experimentation and intervention. Farmers and
farms have largely been ignored by the conventional
agricultural community. Indeed, farmers are often
reduced to workers whose primary tasks are to
follow production procedures outlined from above.
And farms are simply places where production
occurs, devoid of connections to the local community
or social order.
Industrialization is the motor behind the
production model of agriculture. According to
Welsh [7], ‘industrialization has traditionally
referred to the process whereby agricultural
production has become less of a subsistence activity
and more of a commercial activity.’Although it is
difficult to pinpoint an exact starting date for the
industrialization process, it is safe to say that the
mechanization of farming in the early part of the
20th century was one of the giant steps that led to
increasing intensification, concentration and
specialization of production.
The industrialization of production proceeded
relatively unabated from the 1920s through to the
1970s. Farms became larger in size and fewer in
number, especially after World War II when large
amounts of chemical fertilizers and synthetic
pesticides were introduced into the conventional
agriculture model. Land was used more intensively
and yields per acre of farmland increased
dramatically. The amount of farmland decreased
and capital investments on the farm increased.
At the same time, farms were woven into ever tighter
marketing channels.
However, during the past 25 years, several
problems associated with the conventional model of
farming have become apparent. These problems
center on both the environmental aspects and on the
social and community aspects of conventional
agriculture. For example, it is acknowledged that
conventional agriculture had become very resource
intensive. Many conventional agricultural techniques
exploited the land, polluted water and used large
amounts of energy. In many ways, Green Revolution
technologies became the epitome of the conventional
agriculture model [8].
At least some of the environmental problems
associated with conventional agriculture are now
being addressed by genetic engineering. Already
we have seen the development and diffusion of
Opinion TRENDS in Biotechnology Vol.20 No.5 May 2002
disease, insect- and drought-resistant crops.
And biotechnologists are working on a broad range
of biopesticides.
Beyond issues of environmental degradation
and depletion, however, are the negative social and
community consequences associated with
conventional agriculture. Because the conventional
model is anchored to the neoclassical theory of
economics, it is not surprising that conventional
agriculture entirely neglects the issues of rural
community and farm viability. By fixing attention
solely on production and efficiency, the conventional
model does not take into account issues of farm
household and community welfare. The on-going
‘farm crisis’, especially in North America, is
characterized by low commodity prices, lack of
competitive markets and the abnegation of
responsibility by governments for the welfare and
well-being of farmers and their communities.
What is sustainable agriculture?
Sustainable agriculture is a term that has been
used to denote a more environmentally sound and
socially responsible system of agricultural
production than has traditionally existed in most
western societies. Although there are literally
hundreds of definitions of sustainable agriculture,
one of the more widely accepted definitions,
developed by the US Department of Agriculture
(USDA), is ‘an integrated system of plant and
animal production practices having a site-specific
application that will, over the long-term: (1) satisfy
human food and fiber needs; (2) enhance
environmental quality and the natural resource
base upon which the agricultural economy depends;
(3) make the most efficient use of nonrenewable
resources and integrate, where appropriate,
natural biological cycles and controls; (4) sustain
the economic viability of farm operations; and
(5) enhance the quality of life for farmers and
society as a whole [9].
It is important to note that this definition
encompasses the three dimensions most closely
associated with sustainable agriculture – the
economic dimension, the environmental dimension
and the social and community dimension. A truly
sustainable agriculture is one that is economically
profitable for farmers, preserves and enhances
environmental quality, contributes to the well-being
of farm households and nurtures local community
development. Sustainable agriculture denotes a
holistic, systems-oriented approach to farming that
focuses on the interrelationships of social, economic
and environmental processes.
A small, but growing, number of academic
programs and research projects, especially in
Europe, are being organized around ecological
agriculture. An ecological approach necessitates a
reintegration of the production-oriented disciplines
that have driven conventional agriculture.
http://tibtech.trends.com
195
Sustainable agriculture is not guided by the same
productionist logic as conventional agriculture.
Instead, the imperative to produce as much food as
cheaply as possible is filtered through a set of
environmental and social concerns. Community
problem-solving, rather than economic competition,
is the social foundation of sustainable agriculture.
Sustainable agriculture and agricultural biotechnologies
I believe that ‘sustainable agriculture’ and
‘conventional agriculture’ represent two distinct
and essentially incompatible biological paradigms.
Although there might be points of intersection
between experimental biology and ecological biology,
the reductionist nature of the former and the systems
focus of the latter are not easily reconciled.
Experimental biology focuses on ‘traits’ within a
variety or species, whereas ecology is all about
processes and linkages.
It is not surprising that large corporations have
become primary actors in the creation and
dissemination of advanced agricultural
biotechnologies. Through intellectual property
regimes, the genetically engineered products are
turned into ‘commodities’ that create wealth for the
companies that developed them.
Sustainable agriculture, however, is
fundamentally about ‘problem-solving.’ Ecological
approaches to agriculture seek not so much to
increase output or yield but to identify and moderate
production processes that are ‘optimal’.
In a seminal study of the differences between
conventional agriculture and sustainable agriculture,
Beus and Dunlap [10] identify key elements that
distinguish the two agricultural paradigms (Table 1).
They see domination of nature versus harmony with
nature as one of the key points of demarcation
between the two approaches. Likewise, the
reductionist nature of conventional agriculture is
captured by the emphasis on specialization, whereas
the problem-solving attribute of sustainable
agriculture is aligned with diversity.
The underlying social science paradigms are
portrayed by Beus and Dunlap as competition versus
community. Conventional agriculture rests on a
business orientation, with a primary emphasis on
speed, quantity and profit. The community
orientation of sustainable agriculture, however, rests
on cooperation, with an emphasis on permanence,
quality and beauty.
The term ‘civic agriculture’ captures the
problem-solving foundations of sustainable
agriculture [11]. Civic agriculture refers to the
emergence and growth of community-based
agriculture and food-production activities that not
only meet consumer demands for fresh, safe and
locally produced foods, but also create jobs,
encourage entrepreneurship and strengthen
community identity. Civic agriculture brings
together production and consumption activities
196 Opinion TRENDS in Biotechnology Vol.20 No.5 May 2002

a
Table 1. Selected elements of conventional and sustainable agriculture
Conventional agriculture Sustainable agriculture

Domination of nature Harmony with nature

Humans are separate from and superior to nature Humans are part of and subject to nature
Nature consists primarily of resources to be used Nature is valued primarily for its own sake
Life cycle incomplete; decay (recycling of wastes) neglected Life cycle complete; growth and decay balanced
Human-made systems imposed on nature Natural ecosystems are imitated
Production maintained by agricultural chemicals Production maintained by development of healthy soil
Highly processed, nutrient-fortified food Minimally processed, naturally nutritious food
Specialization Diversity
Narrow genetic base Broad genetic base
More plants grown in monocultures More plants grown in polycultures
Single-cropping in succession Multiple crops in complementary rotations
Separation of crops and livestock Integration of crops and livestock
Standardized production systems Locally adapted production systems
Highly specialized, reductionist science and technology Interdisciplinary, systems-oriented science and technology
Competition Community
Lack of cooperation, self-interest Increased cooperation
Farm traditions and rural culture out-dated Preservation of farm traditions and rural culture
Small rural communities not necessary to agriculture Small rural communities essential to agriculture
Farm work a drudgery; labor input to be minimized Farm work rewarding; labor an essential to be made meaningful
Farming is a business only Farming as way of life as well as a business
Primary emphasis on speed, quantity and profit Primary emphasis on permanence, quality and beauty
a
Adapted from [10].

within communities and offers consumers real
alternatives to the commodities produced, processed
and marketed by large agribusiness firms.
Conclusion
The 21st century is being called the ‘the century of
biology’ by academic and industry leaders alike.
Bio-based industries and services promise to be
powerful engines of the economy, especially in
advanced industrial nations. At the same time,
developing countries might be challenged by the
changes that accompany the introduction of bio-based
activities in their countries.
Acknowledgements With respect to agriculture and food, advanced
Support for this research
was provided by the
biotechnologies have the potential to revolutionize
Cornell University virtually all aspects of society, from how, where,
Agricultural Experiment when and by whom food is produced, processed
Station in conjunction
and consumed to how dietary changes might be used
with CSREES/USDA
regional research projects to treat illness and disease. The consequences of
NE-185 and NC-1001. genomics for agriculture and food production
and for human and animal health that are only
now coming into view in both the advanced
industrial and the developing world are likely
to be profound in social, economic, political and
demographic terms.
Agricultural sustainability presents a challenge
to conventional agriculture and genetic
engineering. It is likely that the productionist
approach that has long dominated agricultural
development must accommodate not only the
environmental and but also the community
dimensions that are embodied in sustainable
agriculture. Many farmers [12], environmentalists [13]
and consumer advocates [14] are calling for a
more sustainable food and agricultural system.
Given the fundamental differences between
conventional agriculture and sustainable
agriculture, it might be that in the near term we will
see the development of two rather distinct systems
of food production.

References 7 Welsh, R. (1996) The Industrial Reorganization of 12 Kirschenmann, F. (1995) Reinvigorating

1 de Tocqueville, A. (1836) Democracy in America,
Saunders and Otley
2 Putnam, R.M. (1993) Making Democracy Work,
p. 90, Princeton University Press
3 Esman, M.J. and Uphoff, N.T. (1984)
Local Organizations: Intermediaries in Rural
Development, p. 40, Cornell University Press
4 Heady, E. (1976) The agriculture of the U.S.
Sci. Am. 235, 107–127
5 Lyson, T.A. and Welsh, R. (1993) Crop diversity,
the production function and the debate between
conventional and sustainable agriculture.
Rural Sociol. 58, 424–439
6 Kay, R.D. (1986) Farm Management: Planning,
Control and Implementation, McGraw-Hill
U.S. Agriculture. (Policy Studies Report No. 6.),
Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative
Agriculture, Greenbelt, Maryland
8 Conway, G. (1997) Doubly Green Revolution,
Penguin
9 Food Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of
1990 (FACTA) (1990) Public Law 101–624,
Title XVI, Subtitle A, Section 1603, Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC
10 Beus, C.E. and Dunlap, R.E. (1990)
Conventional versus alternative agriculture:
the paradigmatic roots of the debate.
Rural Sociol. 55, 590–616
11 Lyson, T.A. (2000) Moving toward civic
agriculture. Choices Third Quarter, 42–45
rural economies. In Research in Rural Sociology
and Development: Sustainable Agriculture
and Rural Communities (Vol. 6)
(Schwarzweller, H.K. and Lyson, T.A., eds),
pp. 215–225, JAI Press
13 Buttel, F.H. (1995) Twentieth century
agricultural-environmental transitions:
a preliminary analysis. In Research in
Rural Sociology and Development:
Sustainable Agriculture and Rural
Communities (Vol. 6) (Schwarzweller, H.K.
and Lyson, T.A., eds), pp. 1–21,
JAI Press
14 Rifkin, J. (1992) Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall
of the Cattle Culture, Dutton

http://tibtech.trends.com